Forum:Images/Photomanipulation Discussion
I've removed this from the art category because, while it may qualify as art, photography and digitally altered photography do not really fit with the fan art theme of the gallery. :Personally, I don't see why this wouldn't remain in the art category. It's a different style but I think it's important that this wiki opt to be inclusive. Eupheria, can you expand on your reasons as the art mod as to why it shouldn't be included? --Tai 18:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC) :: I am also unsure about the motivations of removing it from the gallery. Photomanipulations and digital art are included in our gallery here. At least, in this instance, I can assure all that HScarlett intended it to be art, regardless of my or anyone else's personal taste. Said personal taste, and the medium in which fan art is accomplished, is irrelevant to the theme. Photography can and should be utilized for the wikia. What if, for example, someone cosplayed their character and wished to display it here? No matter which is considered fan art (the taking of the photo or the creation of the costume/get-up), it is still an expression of a piece of the constructed game reality. ::Unless it is directly copyright infringement, I don't see a problem. --Nai 01:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::For starters, I'm not sure, but I believe I have seen this image, un-photoshop filtered, before leaving me somewhat suspicious about it's copyright information, as well as the source of the other two. Secondly, while almost anything can be considered art (I'll be happy to link pieces such as a urinal hung in a gallery, roadkill, and jars of urine with photos in them), and I know many people have unique and creative approaches to their characters, however, photographs and photo manipulations that aren't specifically fantasy themed, especially that seem to be from a completely different setting (like the 20's) would seem to me to fit better into a different category. In addition to all of that, quite frankly, if I'm going to be taking down copyrighted work used without permission I feel that I need to cover anything that violates that law, even if it is not a drawing or painting and when you start to get into photography you bring in the question of model's rights, model releases, notifications and permissions, etc. (Little known fact: if you take a picture of someone, then technically the ownership of that image is with the model, not the photographer, unless they sign over their rights to it, however most model releases don't sign over full rights, only single use rights, meaning that even if there is a model release it may not allow for posting the images on the net.) Personally, that's not a can of worms I want to open. With that said, I am working with Lil to set up further categories for the image files not placed in the art category. --User:Eupheria ::::The 'art' argument is not one worth having and is not particularly relevant, imo. The creation of a new category that will include all of 2 or 3 images seems like a waste of time; categories should help users find things, not bury them. Why not simply expand what is included in the art section so these pieces remain there? --Tai 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::::Excuse the incredibly poor writing above. I was not so awake and I think I trailed off a few times forgetting what point I was trying to make. I would go back and edit it it, but now that I'm not the walking dead, I'm not sure where I was going with a few things up there. In any case, the reason I go into the "art argument" is that in the modern day, basically anything and everything that is present as art can find an outlet in which it will be accepted as such. The question is not was it intended as art, but whether or not it fits with the gallery. :::::I would like to put all the images on the wiki into categories, not just the art. If that was done and this, as well as others like it, was placed in a category for photos, photo manipulations, and non-screenshot CG work, it would not be a category for just a couple of pieces. In fact, after spending several days trying to dig my way through all the old files on the wiki, I would say it would be easily as big as the art section is now. If you want to take the stance of categories being to help people find things, not bury them, I would think you would back this. I go through the art section every week to pick out a new image to feature and there are so many things there just lumped into one category that I'm constantly finding things I haven't noticed before in that massive wall of thumbnails. We don't lump all text based things into one category do we? --User:Eupheria ::::::There are several points which have been brought up.: ::::::1) Does photomanipulation belong in the art category? If created to be art, yes. What would be considered art? Something that would stand alone as pleasing without needing to exist for clarification purposes. The OP clarified this stance. ::::::2) Would this belong in the art category? The piece that this discussion page is tied to, a 1920's image that has been photomanipulated, is art, and since it was tied to an article about an Earthen Ring character and posted by an ER member, would be considered art on the wiki and eligible for Category:Art. It doesn't really fit in a fantasy setting by most standards, but to the creator, it did. ::::::3) What would you call a photomanipulated image that isn't "art?" Something like the image of the ring displayed here. It's just been made to show an example of an object for further clarification, or to garnish a page. If we took it out of the page and had it stand alone, we wouldn't call it art, most likely. That's likely going to be hotly debated, but those are my feelings on it. ::::::4) Should the image "Xanders by HScarlett.png" be deleted from the wiki? At this time, you can bet it will be. Eupheria is spot-on regarding the need for releases and permissions from models in pictures--photomanipulated or not. We have no copyright information and no proof of the image being released into the public domain. That makes it deletion-worthy. ::::::5) You're pushing us around! Yesterday, I deleted an image from the wiki--a photomanipulated image--which was creatd from several different images which I could not name the source of, and was pretty positive it was assembled from images that were not released for public use. I spent hours on that thing, but I too followed U.S. laws and removed it from display. I then deleted two other images--one I scoured the 'Net for, and another I had to get as a still from a music video. I put work into all of those things, but forgot the necessary rules of placing such things on the Internet. I'm subject to the same laws everyone else posting on this wiki is, too. ::::::Bah-humbug. ::::::(P.S.: Euphie added more while I was typing. I'll read that over after my next meeting. >.<) ::::::--Lilithia 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::I think we should organize the images on the wiki better, but keep our rulings of what is and is not art able to be flexed. If an image like this is able to be created with X-number of minutes in Photoshop with some filters, I'd have a hard time calling it an original work. :::::::--Lilithia 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::: I think that's one of the things that is hard for me to accept. While, really, you can always go back to the idea that anything can be considered art, I have a hard time lumping something that involves finding a photograph and clicking an automatic filter button (so, really, the process of uploading it to the wiki takes longer than the creation) into the same category as things people spend hours, days, maybe even, occasionally, weeks thinking up, laying out and creating.--User:Eupheria :::::::: Ok, some good points. I have a suggestion and a question. :::::::: My suggestion would be to keep a broad category called art that includes photomanipulations and what not and then create subcategories for the various sections described. This keeps folks who might be justifiably proud of the photomanipulations they've done happy and in the art category but also resolves the lumping problem you describe Eupheria. That would follow the model with some of the written articles. :::::::: The level of concern has been very high here about copyrights for artwork. I have zero clue as to what the rules are governing written material here, such as pasting over stories from the ER Wiki. Is that a policy that should be re-evaluated? --Tai 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC) ---- ::I'd like to know what Euphie thinks about what we should do with the categories, and how to apply them. After all, this is her expertise. We'll be playing with templates and licenses in the coming weeks. ::I do not like the idea of going through over two years' worth of stories and attempting to get permissions. We've been fortunate that no stories have been uploaded without permission from the writers, or the writers posting them on their own, for many months (to my knowledge). We'll keep it that way. Stories will only go up by permission from the copyright holder from here-on. None without permission will be allowed to stay on the wiki. This is not retroactive. ::--Lilithia 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC) ::: Regarding the idea that "We have no copyright information and no proof of the image being released into the public domain. That makes it deletion-worthy." - I don't understand why our default is that someone must have proof that a picture is copyright free. Why don't we assume that if someone posts a picture, they're fine, and remove them only if we know there's a problem? If someone reports an image as violating copyright and can back it up then deletion is clearly called for but phrases like "I'm pretty sure I saw something like that somewhere else" are sketchy, and make us look like a copyright gestapo. :::In a similar vein, I disagree with point 3. I think we definitely ought to include photomanipulations in the general art category if the uploading user put it there. If we'd like sub categories for hand-drawn pictures and photographs and digitally altered things then I suppose we can do that too but when I search the art section I'd like to see everything, not some arbitraty sub-section. And I do think saying that photomanipulations aren't art is arbitrary - and there are few pictures that make any sense out of context, so I reject that context-dependant rule as well. The picture of the ring, for exapmle, is pretty. I enjoy looking at it and wondering about what significance it has. Wouldn't the mere fact that it evoked thought and feelings on my part make it art? I'd argue yes. :::I don't see that we need to get into a high-flown debate about the nature of art. It's an ER wiki and we should keep the emphasis on ER characters and their stories. Personally, I'd like to have all the pictures and drawings and whatnot in an easily-findable place, even if the category is inaptly named. What if we called it "visual media" instead of "Art?" (... of course, the whole wiki is visual media...) :::I guess I'm just saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." My two cents. --Krelle 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Lil, the current policy for artwork is cleary retroactive. Images are being deleted fairly often because they lack copyright information. Why would that logic apply to Euph's section and not the story section? Or conversely, maybe the 'not retroactive' policy should apply to artwork. ::::And I'd hope that Euph would consider the suggestion that the broad category of art include all the art, with sub-categories within that. --Tai 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::::So far, I believe the only images that have been removed by moderators for copyright issues have been those in very recent history (within the last 30-35 days). Between then and now we have begun to crack down on images that are clearly posted by those that do not hold the copyright, etc. The surface of images posted before that time has just started to be skimmed--in fact, I believe this is the first real case of someone we can no longer contact having posted something long ago. :::::The issue of making most blatant copyright issue deletions retroactive is important to me. Conversely, I would not like to see our art gallery critically shrink in size because of the age of some pieces and players fading out of communication. I'm putting faith in Eupheria to find the most dubious of those images and deal with them appropriately. Yes Tai, the image copyright issue appears retroactive, but the degree is not clear. It's her department, and image copyrights are what she has formal training in, so I'll let her go as far as she wants. :::::Personally, I don't like the idea of the retroactive deletions going too far back. I hope that there will not be many more put on the list, and that the nature of the images be used to determine whether-or-not we really should consider the possibility of a copyright issue stemming from it in the future. For now on, though, I do want to see images correctly labeled with copyright information tags, which is a simple click on a drop-down box when uploading the image (I'm guilty of slacking on it, too, and I'll be going back to fix them). You can also be sure that newly uploaded images without that information will be dealt with quickly, so that uploading users can be contacted and information clarified. These are just simple, responsible things to do. :::::Am I going to delete stories posted in recent history? No. They haven't been posted by anyone except those with permission or ownership for a long time, and I plan to keep it that way. Sure, not going back and checking on all of the stories is just as dangerous as not doing so with the images, but I am going to take the risk on those, personally. That, and I really think that the likelihood of a story being stolen and posted on here without permission and attribution is far less likely than someone posting an image they found somewhere (once again, totally personally guilty on that point, and that opinion is my bias). :::::Just to clarify, we're being more cautious with images lately because of two reasons: 1) I had been watching over things for much of the past and really didn't pay attention to image copyrights, and, 2) Because we now have someone in our group that has a strong personal understanding of copyright issues and images, and that person is alarmed. If someone takes an image from Street Fighter X^5 XIV, posts it on our wiki as a character image, and then someone else finds the image here, takes it, and places it in a book because it was posted under the general GNU license that all pages are by default under, Capcom will sue the publisher, Wikia, and those who had the responsibility of the wiki--which would include us. I am strapped for cash and sanity as is. I do not need to pay legal fees or go through depositions. :::::And that is why we are worried over image copyrights, why I am not going retroactive with story permissions, and why I'm actually letting Eupheria decide on the extent to which we examine older images. :::::I need more tea. :::::--Lilithia 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :::::: So, to clarify, this is an issue of copyright content, not an issue of 'artistic' content/context, yes? We are no longer dealing with whether a piece of fan art belongs in the gallery because it looks like it is from an inappropriate time period? I am not opposed to separate categories for 'art' and 'images', but it is a rather complicated subject. I could, like Lilithia said, argue that the ring photomanipulation I created is art, or I could say that it has been created to express an idea. That's the problem; the definitions intersect. But back on topic. We need to educate ourselves on the copyright issues so it is communal, rather than only in the hands of one formally trained, though of course he/she will be the most informed. Perhaps put a link to a summary of what "fair use", "creative commons", etc mean on the image upload page, or above the gallery on the Category:Art pages. :::::: I don't think I should go into anything more since so much has already been discussed. Rest assured, however, that we are not the only ones facing this problem. It has been most prominent since the 1990s and it is not going away as long as there is cyberspace. --Nai 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::First off, I'm leaving the issue of labeling items up to Eupheria, and you know her stance on that ("art can be difficult to define," etc.). She's going to be drawing her lines, mostly by further categorizing images and doing away with the simplistic tag of "Art" for dividing content. But really, don't take anything I say on the issue of what art is as standard--I really don't have the background to support any of those sorts of examples in actions. I was just trying to toss around my opinions on the matter at the time. ::::::The copyright information is actually rather frequently displayed for users... but in the wrong blasted spot for images; every time you edit a page, you see the copyright link in the block of text below the edit window. I was talking to Eupheria about the subject after work today, and here is what we decided should be on the list of things to do: ::::::1) The upload page is getting redone, with a link to the Project:Copyrights page included there. Links to explanations of the different licenses will be there, as well, along with a posted notice that all uploads should have some sort of license selection made. This should serve as a good reminder for users to take a minute and state the origin of their image, etc. ::::::2) The license selections are being edited and updated to allow users to more easily select licenses that fit with the content we host. This clarification is for ease of use. ::::::3) "Art" is apparently a bad word when it comes to categorizing images. The broad term will be replaced with more detailed categories that will be selectable through the license dropdown when uploading. ::::::4) The Project:Copyrights page will have a link to U.S. copyright laws, and brief explanations of how they relate to images. ::::::I think that just about covers everything. ::::::--Lilithia 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::: Thanks for the detailed response. The page I mean specifically, too, is Copyright tags, since it's the only thing that lists them all and is relevant to image uploading. --Nai 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ---- What I think I'm hearing (but please set me straight if I'm wrong) is that Eupheria is the most knowledgeable about art and we'll defer to her on all matters regarding art and copyright. There's been input from several people, including other mods, that has suggested that we keep a broad category for art with subsections for other art. This seems to have been rejected by Lil and Eupheria (see Lil's #3 above). Is that correct? --Tai 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ::It's not quite that black and white, Tai; half(-ish) of that is correct. The working idea is that the category "Art" will be replaced with something more correct as a catch-all, like "Images" or whatnot. From there, the subsections will not be for "other art"--a term that would suggest we would decide what is art and not--but for more appropriate categories such as "Photomanipulation," "Computer Generated," "Paper Media," etc. (we didn't really go over the exacts--it's not my job to knit-pick). Eupheria will handle matters regarding copyrights and images, as is part of her job, and keep the images sorted. There will likely be a transition period where we will have to gather help to sort existing images, but things should be much easier after that. ::--Lilithia 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC) :::Cool. That explanation helps. Thank you. --Tai 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ::::The biggest thing seems to be that, to keep it so highly inclusive we just have to get rid of the term "art" altogether. To keep it makes it so myself, or whoever else is tagging images (as I'll be going through and putting them all in categories) would have to decide what fits in that category as opposed to just being a general image. Instead, we're going to get rid of the idea of art and have it so that an image is just an image, whatever it may be, and then clump them by type. I am open to suggestions as to what to label most of the stuff in the current "art" category though. Everything else will be loosely broken up by media in this plan, but, as opposed to photographs and screenshots, it's not always easy to figure out the media with which things were created, even in digital vs. traditional. There could be paintings and drawings, but then it's a question of how to define each (how much rendering, how much work put into it, what medias qualify, etc.) and it's once again something that becomes an opinion, not a generic label. The easiest route I can think of is to just lump it into an "art" or "fanart" category, but there's the evil word that started this whole nightmare in the first place. So, yeah, open to suggestions. --User:Eupheria :::::Brainstorming time! :::::Paper Media, Print Media, Lineart, Drawn Media :::::What about one of those for paintings and drawings? :::::--Lilithia 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::"Paper Media" wouldn't work with atleast half of it being digital. "Print Media" sounds more like newspapers, or, at best, printmaking stuff to me. "Lineart" is a rather specific type of drawing. "Drawn Media" could work, but isn't that basically synonymous with "Drawings"? That is a category many things there wouldn't really fit into. I've considered "Sketches", but that would, I imagine, be more than a bit insulting for some. --User:Eupheria